IMMIGRATION thread

[Viking]

Apart from the reasons you also gave, there are also other factors such as repression, through the army and spies etc. Remember Tiananmen square? The Czech attempts at breaking away from the soviet union? The Warsaw ghetto uprising?
Sometimes the government will just drive some tanks over your protest and for the common people this is dangerous.
On one hand such efforts can be detected and crushed early if the planning is huge and on the other hand if you plan small, there is a good chace that the others will be too afraid to join and it becomes even more likely that the government declares you a splinter group and drives some tanks over you.
Your ideas are based on the few cases where it worked but those are no guarantee whatsoever.
There were also many people in Tehran and in turkish cities, in both cases the protests were violently crushed because the rest of the population did not support them enough or was too afraid to join in.

You can look at this in a larger context, however. For example, they could have started organising long before the countries got their independence.

They could even have started organising long before colonisation. After all, isn't natural to have a curiosity about what is beyond the world you know or experience? If they had obtained knowledge about the outside world, they would have learnt about potential dangers and new technological developments. Many countries in the west were united by force, so if neighbouring tribes did not agree to an alliance for safety, they could conquer them.

Yes, and why do they not cooperate?

I am sure many do; we do even have the AU organisation. This is where things like dictators and corruption enter the frame.

According to you, the world/Africa as it is makes no sense if I understand you correctly, and yet it is this way. Why do you think that is the case?

Alternatively, the article you linked to has misunderstood or misrepresents reality. If it largely hasn't, then fear of loosing privileges among the elites may be of importance.

Food?

That's definitely an area where African countries can be self-suficient with proper governance; especially with co-operation and trade between countries.

No, you called them more successful examples, although I now see that that was only a relative statement. North Korea also has a higher living standard, some African countries may want to be more like that, surely that would also end the refugee crisis just like turning all these countries into DDRs would.

Remember that we have no reason assume that countries like Venezuela and Cuba are run as well as "anti-imperialist" countries realistically can be. I am pretty certain that is not the case. What they do demonstrate is that this is not an inherently worse option.

Maybe because they do not want to. So what do you recommend to the peasant whom you do not want to flee across the mediterranean?

That's a separate topic. All I am saying is that

a) I do not welcome their arrival in large numbers
b) They can put in an effort to make their country better (but there is no guarantee it will work during their lifetimes)

Now, if wealthy countries like European ones consistently reject these people, the odds should increase for people in these countries to take action to fix their countries.

That when someone is keeping you down it may be hard to pull yourself up by your own bootstraps.

Name specific countries where this is a good analogy, and explain how.

You kept arguing that governments can be overthrown, if that was not you telling them what they should do instead of becoming refugees, then what is your point? Do you have an actual realistic solution or just would-be solutions that are obviously inferior solutions according to the hundreds of thousands of refugees wo would rather enter a rusty boat than try what you suggest?

The point has always been to argue for what I posted earlier in this thread:

Blaming problems in the third world on outside forces is typically a convenient scapegoat. The most troubled of these countries normally have corrupt governance and/or major warring ethnic groups.

What people living in these countries chose to do is up to them. There isn't room for all of them to resettle here, that's for sure.

How does that relate to refugees?

People living in these countries can choose the easy path (do no nothing to improve their country and focus purely on day-to-day tasks), or a hard path (work to fix their country alongside their daily tasks).

[Husar]

You can look at this in a larger context, however. For example, they could have started organising long before the countries got their independence.

They could even have started organising long before colonisation. After all, isn't natural to have a curiosity about what is beyond the world you know or experience? If they had obtained knowledge about the outside world, they would have learnt about potential dangers and new technological developments. Many countries in the west were united by force, so if neighbouring tribes did not agree to an alliance for safety, they could conquer them.

So they are "unnatural" because they did not develop in the same way Europeans did and it was their own fault that they got into this position?

I am sure many do; we do even have the AU organisation. This is where things like dictators and corruption enter the frame.

And who keeps these things in place? The people who would rather run away from them than try to fight them alone?
And what could be done to change that? Just turn around the boats?

Alternatively, the article you linked to has misunderstood or misrepresents reality. If it largely hasn't, then fear of loosing privileges among the elites may be of importance.

How often have you been to Africa or in the political circles of former colonial powers or is it possible that you misunderstand what's going on there? And if you are right, how would one improve the situation with the elites? Would doing that also be preferable to fleeing?
You are aware that people all over Africa and the Middle East already fled even before it became easier to reach Europe. They just fled somewhere else then and many/most still do.

That's definitely an area where African countries can be self-suficient with proper governance; especially with co-operation and trade between countries.

http://www.euractiv.com/specialrepor...la-news-516102

“It is difficult to imagine the sense in the system, because when we import, say, green beans from Kenya, we’re taking imbedded water from a drought-prone country, and then we’re putting into our supermarkets, into our fridges and then we’re throwing it way uneaten,” Benton told EurActiv by telephone, saying his comments reflected his personal views.

“But equally, when you talk to governments down there they say, ‘we need the money’. So in a sense, that’s a very tricky balance to negotiate because by those trade deals you are helping them to develop economically, but at the same time in the long run it cannot be sustainable and that as population grows, and as climate change impacts increasingly happen, it can’t continue in the way it is at the moment.”

Yes, as you said, cut ties to Europe and just trade among africans, then wonder why you have gone broke without the export profits.
Then blame them for having gone broke because they cut the ties with Europe. Also clearly visible here that the professor has no clue what he's talking about since the solution is obviously easy and common sense.

Remember that we have no reason assume that countries like Venezuela and Cuba are run as well as "anti-imperialist" countries realistically can be. I am pretty certain that is not the case. What they do demonstrate is that this is not an inherently worse option.

You mean empty shelves are just as bad in Venezuela as they are in Africa and therefore Venezuela is clearly not worse off?
Of course that is a good point, hungry people are not doing worse than other hungry people, problem solved.

That's a separate topic. All I am saying is that

a) I do not welcome their arrival in large numbers
b) They can put in an effort to make their country better (but there is no guarantee it will work during their lifetimes)

Now, if wealthy countries like European ones consistently reject these people, the odds should increase for people in these countries to take action to fix their countries.

I actually agree that a is not sustainable, but in b you come across as though you blame it on the refugees and you seem pretty naive/spoiled/unrealistic in your expectations. If they are not expectations then your argument seems pointless, might as well point out that one can theoretically fly faster than the speed of light if one had unlimited energy. And those people could work on that to fly to a better planet or they can just continue to take the lazy route and flee to Europe...

Name specific countries where this is a good analogy, and explain how.

Afghanistan, they were organized, got bombed by an outside power, had a puppet installed and were left alone in a state where continued infighting seems almost inevitable. Apparently most of the refugees in Greece are incidentally from Syria and Afghanistan.
Maybe you can explain how the outside influences did not contribute to the stream of people fleeing from Afghanistan?

Oh and like, the egyptian military is still/again funded by the US.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2...y-aid-to-egypt
http://www.forbes.com/sites/charlest...ils-to-review/

The point has always been to argue for what I posted earlier in this thread:

Yes, and WHY do they have these problems? Many argue it's because colonialism messed them up, the slave trade turned them into enemies and borders were drawn arbitrarily and can now only be changed through bloodshed that will not really stop the stream of refugees.

What people living in these countries chose to do is up to them. There isn't room for all of them to resettle here, that's for sure.

We have enough food and room for a whole lot more. Maybe you mean we cannot take them without sharing some of our wealth with them or treating them really badly.

People living in these countries can choose the easy path (do no nothing to improve their country and focus purely on day-to-day tasks), or a hard path (work to fix their country alongside their daily tasks).

And since you let them choose, many choose to come here. I'm glad we agree that this is a valid choice.

[Viking]

So they are "unnatural" because they did not develop in the same way Europeans did

Those are your words.

and it was their own fault that they got into this position?

Up to this point, I've been concerned about the time period from the start of colonialisation (at the earliest) to the present. Going even earlier is a different topic, so I'll drop that.

However, this is something we can also apply to the world even at present. Currently, we implicitly assume that the universe does not contain hostile high-tech beings from other planets. The moral blame might lie with any aliens that obliterate or enslave us, but if we had focused on technological developments and scouting the universe rather than killing each other and pretending the Earth is all there is, we'd be making smarter choices. In many contexts, talking about who is to blame is pointless; what ultimately matters is prevention.

And who keeps these things in place?

Evil non-African foreigners? Doubt it.

And if you are right, how would one improve the situation with the elites?

That's an internal problem, cf. the starting point of this debate.

Yes, as you said, cut ties to Europe and just trade among africans, then wonder why you have gone broke without the export profits.
Then blame them for having gone broke because they cut the ties with Europe. Also clearly visible here that the professor has no clue what he's talking about since the solution is obviously easy and common sense.

They need the money because they are part of the international system - circular reasoning. And look, content in your article agrees with me in terms of priorities:

Poor transportation connections, high tariffs, security barriers and primitive information-sharing on market needs contribute to the problem, ACP’s Chambas told EurActiv, making it easier to ship goods to Europe by air or sea.

Leaders of the 53-nation African Union have approved an “action plan” to change this by promoting regional commerce and providing a more inviting manufacturing climate. The AU plan calls for the free movement of people and commerce, and multinational cooperation to address the sub-continent’s pitiful infrastructure.

Regional trade blocs in the west, south and east have led to easier trade and infrastructure investments – though Chambas said central Africa remains largely outside the picture.

You mean empty shelves are just as bad in Venezuela as they are in Africa and therefore Venezuela is clearly not worse off?
Of course that is a good point, hungry people are not doing worse than other hungry people, problem solved.

Well...many places in Africa they don't even have shelves. As far as I can see, the ordinary Venezuelan is not starving, uneducated or dying in droves from mosquitoes.

you seem pretty naive/spoiled/unrealistic in your expectations. If they are not expectations then your argument seems pointless, might as well point out that one can theoretically fly faster than the speed of light if one had unlimited energy. And those people could work on that to fly to a better planet or they can just continue to take the lazy route and flee to Europe...

I explicitly stated that there was no guarantee it would work in their lifetimes in the parenthesis.

And no; infinite energy would take you arbitrarily close to the speed of light, but not past it.

Afghanistan, they were organized, got bombed by an outside power, had a puppet installed and were left alone in a state where continued infighting seems almost inevitable.

So the Afghans are wired in such a manner that if they get bombed, they start fighting each other? Sounds like they should start a national counselling program.

Maybe you can explain how the outside influences did not contribute to the stream of people fleeing from Afghanistan?

This was never my argument.

Oh and like, the egyptian military is still/again funded by the US.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2...y-aid-to-egypt
http://www.forbes.com/sites/charlest...ils-to-review/

Yet US funding didn't prevent the previous revolution.

Yes, and WHY do they have these problems? Many argue it's because colonialism messed them up, the slave trade turned them into enemies and borders were drawn arbitrarily and can now only be changed through bloodshed that will not really stop the stream of refugees.

In effect you are saying that they are too stupid to be able to "un-mess" themselves.

We have enough food and room for a whole lot more.

But not every inhabitant of these countries.

[Husar]

Those are your words.

You say exploration is natural and you say they didn't do it, so what am I supposed to deduce from your words?
Are you speaking in riddles on purpose or do you just not have any opinion but merely strange explanations with no point to them?

Do you blame anyone or are you just saying things for the fun of it?

[Brenus]

"Show me were ECONOMY is mentioned." No problem:"Will Marxists ever change their rhetorics of "traitors yielding the national property to international capitalists". The worst of this is it is what YOU wrote. Marxism is (but not only as a specialist who lived 20 years in a Marxist society already knows) a explanation of how economy works.

"For 20 years" And this qualify you to know what Marxism is about? How? You were not good at understand it, I would say. Did you play truant during the lessons?

"You evidently don't either when you call Right Sector nazis" They call themselves Nazi, and wear Nazi Uniforms and symbols, named their organisations with Nazi names. I don't need twisted explanation.

"I never denied that there were nazis on Maidan" Oh yes, you did. You wrote things like "I wouldn't call them Nazi but extreme-nationalists" or close enough. You even did right now, in your latest intervention: "And if they were real nazis".

"You again try to present the events as an ethnic and/or linguistic conflict, and neither is correct. Ethnic Russians and Russian-speakers were as numerous as Ukrainians and Ukrainian speakers on Maidan, 60% of ATO soldiers now are Russian-speakers, some predominantly Russian-speaking regions (Mykolayiv and Dnipropetrovsk) show a higher percentage of those who were mobilized than some "nationalistic" regions (Ternopil). So you still stay a prisoner of the stereotypes and misconceptions you adopted and are going by with." Bla bla bla bla. From Ukrainianationalist.com, I suppose, or equivalent (Ukr.gov.propaganda.com?). With all the Russian Pro-Ukrainian government, some can wonder how Putin succeeded to find any volunteers to give weapons to fight. Of course, I always forgot. These were Chechen mercenaries...

"So wearing emblems and marching and the ban that was repealed a day later equal ethnic cleansing?" Yeap. It starts like this. The fact they failed is just a proof how incompetent they were. But the last one is no excuse for the try.

"Now I see how qualified you were in Bosnia to detect ethnic cleansings." Now I see how pathetic and out of touch your arguments are.

" I gave an event of the past " 1 year for me, 600 for you. I see... And again, perhaps this time you will get it, it was nothing link with traitors, but with expansion of EU to the East in a USSR kind of way (to answer to your question about what did Marxists learned about USSR bla bla bla baseless intervention you provided).
And I still don't see your point about Azincourt. But you probably don't either, because you don't debate, you attack randomly at what you perceived as weak points to your "opponents".

Now, except if you come-up with others interventions not directly linked with ultra-nationalist Ukrainian sources/propaganda (you can carry on) but I will not take any more time to answer your bubbles. Be free to carry on, but I spent too much time with your none sense, and was too close to become like you, full of what ever you want to qualify your various rants.

I do apology to others participants for this. I can't promise for ever, but I will try to do better...

[Gilrandir]

Marxism is (but not only as a specialist who lived 20 years in a Marxist society already knows) a explanation of how economy works.

Not only. It is about politics as well.

"For 20 years" And this qualify you to know what Marxism is about? How? You were not good at understand it, I would say. Did you play truant during the lessons?

I learnt it not in a classroom, I LIVED it. And if you paid attention (which I doubt) I always spoke of APPLIED Marxism. The Communists tried (with what understanding of it they had) to put into practice Marx's economic theory. We all know the results.

"I never denied that there were nazis on Maidan" Oh yes, you did. You wrote things like "I wouldn't call them Nazi but extreme-nationalists" or close enough.

Again a misplaced quote. It was said about Svoboda, but besides them there were other extemists on Maidan, some of who were for sure nazis. And I never denied it, moreover, I had an explanation of it which is: in times of turmoils all kinds of extremists come to the limelight and when the turmoils are over, they merge into backgound. The turmoil in Ukraine didn't die but such elements have become no more conspicuous than in other countries.

"You evidently don't either when you call Right Sector nazis" They call themselves Nazi, and wear Nazi Uniforms and symbols, named their organisations with Nazi names. I don't need twisted explanation.

You said it about Azov. Right Sector don't do these things.

And as is usual with you (as a Marxist) you see the world in two colors - black and white. No hues or shades.
Black is for Ukraine, the EU, NATO, the USA, obscurantists, religion... White is for fewer things - valiant French army and... rioting Russian-speaking populaces. Consequently, everything that refers to the first can't be any good and vice versa.

You eagerly search for nazis in Ukraine (and in Ukraine only) turning a blind eye elswhere.
Is this not nazism?
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29700542
There were other numerous examples when Ukrainian POWs were marched through Donetsk or taken into the streets so that "the populaces" could kick them or spit them into the face.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28919683

Again propaganda?

And Tsarov thanked Right Sector for saving him from a crowd that tried to lynch him. For you to understand it better, it is like.... you thanking Le Pen.

You accuse Ukraine of planned ethnic cleansings, and Russia DOES it:
https://news.pn/en/RussiaInvadedUkraine/139919
Even if the numbers given by Dzhamilev are twice exaggerated, what would you say if
the same was said about Russian speakers fleeing the "junta-ruled Ukraine"?

You don't want to see anything of that becuase it doesn't fit into your vision of events.

Bla bla bla bla. From Ukrainianationalist.com, I suppose, or equivalent (Ukr.gov.propaganda.com?). With all the Russian Pro-Ukrainian government, some can wonder how Putin succeeded to find any volunteers to give weapons to fight. Of course, I always forgot. These were Chechen mercenaries...

You have no idea what Ukrainian media publish, yet you accuse all of them of propaganda. I once said (and it stays valid) that Ukrainian TV and internet sources are full of criticism of the Ukrainian government, the president, the way the crisis is addressed, the corruption in Ukrainian army, the oligarchs' depredations and so on. So one can find a lot of information, not only propaganda.
But here I see a strange thing - for the first time you admit that the separatists' weapons were given to them by Putin. It took you just a year to see it! Give me a break! That's too fast a progress.

And again, perhaps this time you will get it, it was nothing link with traitors, but with expansion of EU to the East in a USSR kind of way ...
...you don't debate, you attack randomly at what you perceived as weak points to your "opponents".

It is difficult to debate with a person who says something about traitor governments and rightaway links a one-year old information about Yaresko. Cohesion is what I percieve as a weak point in this post.

[Gilrandir]

"You again try to present the events as an ethnic and/or linguistic conflict, and neither is correct. Ethnic Russians and Russian-speakers were as numerous as Ukrainians and Ukrainian speakers on Maidan, 60% of ATO soldiers now are Russian-speakers, some predominantly Russian-speaking regions (Mykolayiv and Dnipropetrovsk) show a higher percentage of those who were mobilized than some "nationalistic" regions (Ternopil). So you still stay a prisoner of the stereotypes and misconceptions you adopted and are going by with." Bla bla bla bla. From Ukrainianationalist.com, I suppose, or equivalent (Ukr.gov.propaganda.com?).

Here's the chart that shows mobilization progress:

[Viking]

You say exploration is natural and you say they didn't do it, so what am I supposed to deduce from your words?

That the idea of exploring the world and finding out what's out there could actually have struck them, as well as any other person on the planet. Most people are primarily concerned with what's right in front of their noses (except the stuff that's popular parlance, like global warming currently). There are downsides and upsides to this, like everything else.

One downside is that outside forces stronger than you might come apparently out of nowhere and attack you when you are unprepared - whether they are called Huns or Europeans.

Do you blame anyone or are you just saying things for the fun of it?

What would be the point of blaming people? Whether the Huns had decided to settle outside the Roman Empire, or the Romans had run their empire properly, a lot of outcomes would have been similar as far as the health of the Roman Empire is concerned.

[Husar]

One downside is that outside forces stronger than you might come apparently out of nowhere and attack you when you are unprepared - whether they are called Huns or Europeans.

What would be the point of blaming people? Whether the Huns had decided to settle outside the Roman Empire, or the Romans had run their empire properly, a lot of outcomes would have been similar as far as the health of the Roman Empire is concerned.

So you think modern morals and ideals are superfluous nd everyone should just learn to cope with the darwinist world we live in and make the best of it?
You're still saying a lot about facts without making an actual point. Would you say if a banker tricks me and I lose money and I find a way to kill him that's just how it is and the police shouldn't really do anything for he should have found a way to defend himself or do you sometimes hold your and other modern governments and societies to higher standards?

You sound incredibly darwinist to me. The strong will just trounce the weak and that's the way it is, nothing we should do about it. Is that your idea or are you just stating facts again without any morale at all? Do you have any idea what should be done in the future or are you just going to what what will happen and assume that it is what it is whatever it is?

[Viking]

You're still saying a lot about facts without making an actual point.

Of course there's a point: it pays to be prepared, it pays to make an effort. Taking the victim role typically won't work unless there are people capable of helping you out who takes pity on you; and in many cases, you are dead before that can happen.

[Tuuvi]

That the idea of exploring the world and finding out what's out there could actually have struck them, as well as any other person on the planet. Most people are primarily concerned with what's right in front of their noses (except the stuff that's popular parlance, like global warming currently). There are downsides and upsides to this, like everything else.

One downside is that outside forces stronger than you might come apparently out of nowhere and attack you when you are unprepared - whether they are called Huns or Europeans.

Europeans discovered the Americas and became global colonizers because they wanted to find a sea route to the Indies and become rich trading in spices and other goods, not because they were naturally curious. The East coast of Africa already had sea routes to the Indies, where the wealthy Swahili city-states served as hubs for Arab traders. Europeans had reasons to explore that Africans didn't.

And besides that, the colonization of Africa happened a long time after Europeans made contact, the Europeans didn't just suddenly come out of nowhere.

[Fragony]

Lets take an example to Hungary, they just build a fence that is not impossible to get over, but at least very tricky. We could also learn from the Ozzies, they haul the ships back without being jerks, they give good boats and plenty of supplies. As it is now it's a humanitarian disaster waiting to happen, it should be made VERY clear that there is no meaninfull life for them in Europe first, despite what these Maelström typs open-bordere fundie types say. It is indeed much harsher than some say by the way.

edit, it can also be downright cruel. Personal experience; a friend of mine lived in a house just before an asylum-centre, we always had a lot of barbecues and welcomed everyone. Pakistani guy thought he got a permit and a job and cooked us a big dinner to celebrate it,but they lied to him as the bus went straight to Schiphol airport. Nobody of us ever heard from him after that.

[Viking]

How is that going to help now? Should they prepare now and for what?

Well, if you want to prepare something; it pays to have a functioning country. It would act as a preparation for most things..

Europeans discovered the Americas and became global colonizers because they wanted to find a sea route to the Indies and become rich trading in spices and other goods, not because they were naturally curious. The East coast of Africa already had sea routes to the Indies, where the wealthy Swahili city-states served as hubs for Arab traders. Europeans had reasons to explore that Africans didn't.

And besides that, the colonization of Africa happened a long time after Europeans made contact, the Europeans didn't just suddenly come out of nowhere.

I wasn't saying anything about what drove the Europeans of that time, but that surely almost everyone has some curiosity about what's beyond the next hill. For those who don't, they can still realise that such a curiosity can pay off and even become vital.